Canadian Money Forum banner
861 - 880 of 889 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
Hydrogen won't be green until nuclear is promoted. Only then fuel cells will be viable en masse
For some reason it is a boogeyman to environmentalists. They would rather have poisoned rivers and child labor in mines.
Guess too much money yet to be taken from the poor and given to the rich in subsidies to get away from it and promote nuclear
The issue with Hydrogen Fuel cells is it is only 40-50% full cycle efficient, vs batteries which can get to 80-90%.
That's a big difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
The issue with Hydrogen Fuel cells is it is only 40-50% full cycle efficient, vs batteries which can get to 80-90%.
That's a big difference.
It is only an issue if the hydrogen fuel cells become uneconomical in that scenario, since emissions are not an issue.
And this is dependent solely on price of electricity - come in nuclear power.
It might also limit range, but it is already very high so don't see that as particular concern - of course higher efficiency would lead to higher range, but we don't live in a perfect world
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Our nuclear plants in Ontario are ancient. Some go back to the 1960s.

There is zero public support to build new ones. A government would be swiftly defeated on that issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
It is only an issue if the hydrogen fuel cells become uneconomical in that scenario, since emissions are not an issue.
And this is dependent solely on price of electricity - come in nuclear power.
It might also limit range, but it is already very high so don't see that as particular concern - of course higher efficiency would lead to higher range, but we don't live in a perfect world
If it takes twice as much electricity to go the same range, then that's an issue with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Would you buy a car that costs twice as much to run?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,415 Posts
If I needed to buy a new car, I think it would be a plug-in hybrid. Hopefully one that would have sufficient electric range for normal daily trips - shopping, golf, dining out etc. plus a margin. Maybe 100km. in total would do. Not available yet!

You are right about hydrogen. It is the answer for many applications.
Hydrogen is DOA for most road applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
If it takes twice as much electricity to go the same range, then that's an issue with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Would you buy a car that costs twice as much to run?
Again, there is no such thing as ideal solution without any drawbacks

Hydrogen: can use electricity anywhere in the world, can use existing infrastructure, easy to transport, much easier supply chain, green, ethically sourced, less efficient

Batteries: higher efficiency/uses less power, need new infrastructure, more 'known' technology, need to use electricity at point of use, uses precious metals, destroying environment through mining, sourcing from third world countries - child labor, shorter life span.

I am sure I forgot some things on the list - feel free to add any
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,415 Posts
Again, there is no such thing as ideal solution without any drawbacks

Hydrogen: can use electricity anywhere in the world, can use existing infrastructure, easy to transport, much easier supply chain, green, ethically sourced, less efficient

Batteries: higher efficiency/uses less power, need new infrastructure, more 'known' technology, need to use electricity at point of use, uses precious metals, destroying environment through mining, sourcing from third world countries - child labor, shorter life span.

I am sure I forgot some things on the list - feel free to add any
Hydrogen fuel cells require precious metals as well, such as platinum. Hydrogen when requires far more new infrastructure then BEVs. Fueling stations costing millions, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Hydrogen fuel cells require precious metals as well, such as platinum. Hydrogen when requires far more new infrastructure then BEVs. Fueling stations costing millions, etc.
Why wouldn't you use the existing stations with slightly repurposed distributors?
Supply chain for hydrogen wouldn't differ much from supply chain for gasoline
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Gas pumps are way different than high pressure pressure filling stations.
There are some differences but repurposing is not prohibitively expensive.
There was a study about it in California that found significant percentage of current gas stations can be repurposed. I won't quote exact number because don't have the study in front of me, nor do I have time to pull it up right now.
Also, existing natural gas infrastructure can be used for pure hydrogen, albeit at lower capacity than methane.
Hydrogen can also be blended into existing natural gas lines with the blend % increasing as the demand picks up.


"
Of the 5 000 km of hydrogen pipelines currently operational, more than 90% are located in Europe and the United States. Most are closed systems owned by large merchant hydrogen producers concentrated near industrial consumers (mainly refineries and chemical plants). The first steps to expand this hydrogen-specific infrastructure for delivery to end users (additional to industrial users) have already been taken. Most developments have involved repurposing natural gas pipelines, which can significantly reduce the cost of establishing national and regional hydrogen networks.
The first natural gas pipeline was converted and put into commercial service by Gasunie in the Netherlands in November 2018, with a length of 12 km and throughput capacity of 4 kt/yr. This prompted a consortium of gas grid operators in Europe to propose a European Hydrogen Backbone (EHB) initiative in 2020 (updated in 2021) that envisions 39 700 km of pipelines across 21 countries by 2040 – 69% being repurposed natural gas networks and 31% newly built hydrogen pipelines.
"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,547 Posts
Our nuclear plants in Ontario are ancient. Some go back to the 1960s.

There is zero public support to build new ones. A government would be swiftly defeated on that issue.
Our original nuclear plants are getting a bit old or have already been closed. First commercial one was at Pickering and started up in 1971. Prior to that there was a demonstration of a CANDU reactor at Douglas Point in late 60s. The four Darlington reactors first came on line in the 90's.

Pickering will be closed down in stages ending in 2025.

Darlington is currently being refurbished. First stage of refurbishment came on line last year and project is supposed to be complete by 2026. The refurbished plant is expected to operate until 2055.

The initial Bruce reactors came on line in late 70s and more during the mid/late 80s. Further refurbishments have taken place since Bruce Power was formed, some as recent as 2010's. (Transcanada (TRP) is a partner in Bruce Power) Current projected life of Bruce is to 2066. This includes plans for further refurbishments

So no, our current nuclear fleet is not "ancient" ! And much is and has been going on to maintain or increase capacity well into the future. Just as well, as the power for all those new EVs and Heat Pumps will have to come from somewhere (other than fossil fuels!

PS: I still drive a car that is completely original that was built about the same time as that first Pickering reactor! Still runs perfectly :) A Classic, but not yet ancient :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
Gas pumps are way different than high pressure pressure filling stations.
There are some differences but repurposing is not prohibitively expensive.
They're completely different technologies, one is dumping a liquid through a hose in atmosphere, one is transferring pressurized gas.

Sure a lot can be common, but they're completely different technologies, and they'll be able to keep little more than the building.
Tanks, distirbution metering etc all need to be replaces.

Also in many places you have pump your own gas, but refilling pressurized propane is slower and requires a staff member.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,936 Posts
Took very little for stations to start offering propane to fill vehicles in the 80’s
Hydrogen would be no different and also safer
Very easy today to get filled up using propane power
I biked past a hydrogen filling station in Vegas this morning
Not sure if that’s a green bud or not
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,139 Posts
Pickering is being closed due to age. There are no plans to replace the energy.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,591 Posts
The funny part about the whole subsidies for millionaires buying EVs is that it's not really valid. Assuming Ontario were to set limits like the federal government, I doubt millionaires would see much in the way of tax rebate. Particularly since they wouldn't be buying a max $55k car, but rather a $100k+ car like these.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,415 Posts
Took very little for stations to start offering propane to fill vehicles in the 80’s
Hydrogen would be no different and also safer
Very easy today to get filled up using propane power
I biked past a hydrogen filling station in Vegas this morning
Not sure if that’s a green bud or not
Propane and hydrogen are not the same thing. Hydrogen needs to be chilled to a much greater degree to achieve the necessary energy density.



The infrastructure doesn't exist, and will cost a lot to build. DOA. BEV is cheaper than gasoline to operate, hydrogen is more expensive. DOA. The only hope hydrogen has is banning combustion engines entirely. And by then, BEV will be so many orders of magnitude ahead in adoption it will be even more of a fait accompli than it already is. In my book, keep using hydrocarbons where it is absolutely necessary until other technologies make sense. I think hydrogen may only make sense for aircraft, and then only long-haul. Even then, a different synthetic fuel would likely work better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,547 Posts
Pickering is being closed due to age. There are no plans to replace the energy.
Pickering itself will be closed and shuttered for a long time while the plant is decommissioned and the site decontaminated. Can't see that changing, although perhaps something new could perhaps be built there.

But you are wrong about Pickering's output not being replaced. Right now only two of the 4 Darlington reactors are operating and at Bruce, 6 out of 8 . At Pickering 3 of the 4 remaining are operating. Total nuclear output at present is 8600MW. When refurbishment at Darlington and Bruce is complete in 2026 & 2029 and Pickering closed, the overall capacity will be ~9750MW - an over 13% increase.

There were plans for 2 new reactors at Darlington, but this project was deferred and refurbishment of old reactors, chosen as the preferred way of obtaining the increased capacity. They are apparently planning further incremental projects at both Bruce and Darlington but nothing as yet announced.

To sum up - Plans are already in place, licenses approved and projects under way, to increase Ontario's nuclear capacity at the existing sites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Took very little for stations to start offering propane to fill vehicles in the 80’s
Hydrogen would be no different and also safer
Propane tank: < 200 psi.
Hydrogen tank: ~10000 psi.

They will never be the same. Not even close. The only thing hydrogen has going for it is a huge amount of lobbying money from established interests in the liquid fuel industry. Enough money that they managed to convince a good chunk of the population that it's green because of "water out the tailpipe".
 
861 - 880 of 889 Posts
Top